Supreme court to hear another university AA case, but this time conservatives have enough votes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/us/justices-to-hear-case-on-affirmativ...
Plus make sure to see my post <a href="http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/how-i-got-a-770-on-the-gmat-with-minimal-effort-while-working-banking-hours%E2%80%A6">How I got a 770 on the GMAT with minimal effort while working banking... phantombanker's GMAT Study Guide |
A week or two ago there was an article written about how your weight might inversely effect you during the hiring process. During the conversation I dropped some personal information about me losing 130 (now 135 pounds). I was PM’d by somebody asking me to tell my story. Well I have some free... How finance saved and gave me a life |
<em>Mod (Andy) note: </em><a href="http://www.wallstreetoasis.com/blog/phantombankers-gmat-study-guide">Here is the link to his study guide</a>
Background: I recently took the GMAT and scored a 770 on my first and only try. Long story short, I studied and took... How I got a 770 on the GMAT with minimal effort while working banking hours… |
Here's my story:
I will be graduating this semester from a non-target university, majoring finance and accounting, with a decent gpa (3.5 up). I started networking last summer, searching for that IBD full time offer. I was even considering delaying my graduation for one semester with the... Full Time Offer, at last! Thanks WSO! |
There she is again: Diane Sawyer, the primary ABC evening news anchor, with another installment in their interminable series of reports on imports and employment in America. I could just strangle her.
One week their (alleged) reporters go to people’s houses and look at everything the occupants... Sawyer’s Syndrome: The ABCs of Trade and Employment |
Fellow Primates,
We are looking for 1-2 students on each campus to help WSO in its sales efforts to student clubs/career centers, and overall promotion at your school both online and on the ground. Below is a description of the position and benefits...thanks in advance for your help! <a... WSO Campus Representative Program |
A common thread we see on WSO from time to time is regarding working for banks in their regional offices.
As banks are leaning towards more cost cutting and squeezing every dollar they can from their operations,<strong> a popular tactic has been to expand existing business and move... Consider your BB regional office. |
There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at the close on Friday over the perceived lack of performance in the Facebook IPO. The stock priced at $38, opened at $42.50 (after a few hiccups at the NASDORK), and closed at exactly $38 after an effort by the syndicate members akin to the Spartans at... IPO Pricing 101 |
<strong>End of day update: </strong>
<ul>
<li>Close: 38.23 +0.23 (0.61%) and holding stable in after hours trading.</li>
<li>Open: 42.05</li>
<li>High: 45.00</li>
<li>Low: 38.00 </li>
<li>Volume:... Volume of FB Shares Traded today? |
I'm going to be an organ donor in the next few months (kidney, to my dad). I'm not at all in it for the glory (except for subtly dropping it when i'm picking up a chick at the bar) BUT should I add this experience to my resume? If so, how and where?
If its subtle / small / at... Add "Organ Donor" to my resume? |
| User | Silver Bananas |
|---|---|
| TNA | 846 |
| Edmundo Braverman | 751 |
| CompBanker | 747 |
| happypantsmcgee | 648 |
| IlliniProgrammer | 548 |
| UFOinsider | 459 |
| Nouveau Richie | 377 |
| Midas Mulligan Magoo | 369 |
| TheKing | 341 |
| cphbravo96 | 338 |
| User | Banana Points |
|---|---|
| TNA | 11669 |
| Edmundo Braverman | 11011 |
| WallStreetOasis.com | 10266 |
| happypantsmcgee | 9303 |
| UFOinsider | 8131 |
| CompBanker | 7796 |
| IlliniProgrammer | 7653 |
| Midas Mulligan Magoo | 5250 |
| monty09 | 5173 |
| cphbravo96 | 4426 |
The biggest winner from this
The biggest winner from this is going to be the Asian community (and I say good for them).
I didn't think it was
I didn't think it was possible, but holy crap - Kennedy may actually vote correctly on this one. Of course, he doesn't have a good track record. The precedent seems to exist mainly in two cases heard in 2006 - Meredith v. Jefferson Board of Education,
Justice Kennedy concurred in part with Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and concurred in the judgment. He wrote a concurring opinion addressing his dissent from part of Roberts' opinion.
Part I - Kennedy's dissent from the plurality opinion, stating that diversity can be a compelling educational goal depending on the definition.
Part II - Chief Justice's implication of an "all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor."
Part III - Response to dissent's assumptions
III-A - "[R]eliance on [the] Court's precedents to justify the explicit, sweeping, classwide racial classifications at issue" as a misreading that undermines "principles needed to guard our freedom."
III-B - Dissent's minimizing or neglecting difference between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.
III-C - Dissent ignoring dangers of "individual classifications"
and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District 1
In his concurrence, Kennedy differed with the plurality because, he found, the goal of obtaining a diverse student body is a compelling state interest.
"Diversity, depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling educational goal a school district may pursue. "
Furthermore, Kennedy found that that race-conscious mechanisms can be used by school districts to further the goal of diversity, a position rejected by the plurality. Kennedy argued that the government had an interest in ensuring racial equality: "The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race."
Finally, Kennedy wrote:
"A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered."
Nevertheless, Kennedy found the school districts did not narrowly tailor the use of race to achieve the compelling interests in the case. Specifically, Kennedy finds that the districts could have achieved the same goal through less racially charged means.
Justice Kennedy asserts that the dissent must "brush aside two concepts of central importance" to uphold the racial classification in the case. First, Kennedy harshly faults the dissent for consciously ignoring the difference between de jure and de facto segregation. And second, Kennedy faults the dissent for ignoring the "presumptive invalidity of a State's use of racial classifications to differentiate its treatment of individuals."
He feels that AA can be legitimate, and he has only narrowly favored removing it in the past in fairly narrow opinions. I think he supports the idea that AA can be constitutional, where as it has to meet some fairly strict guidelines for seeking to promote diversity as opposed to race based merits.
Haha.. I just read this in
Haha.. I just read this in the WSJ. AA has no place in America.
per ardua ad astra
AA, I believe, should be
AA, I believe, should be based on economic backgrounds. That would actually make it very worthwhile. It does to an extent take that economic background into account right now, but not as much as one would like. Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness. I think we need to promote that.
I'll say this as a URM who
I'll say this as a URM who has conscientiously and purposefully omitted race from any form I've ever filled out for school or employment:
Race should not be a determining factor in admissions or advancement in any endeavor, be it undergrad, grad school, or finance/law/medicine/consulting/engineering/etc. Flat out, simple as that.
I get the motivation. You had a number of industries where the good ol' boys club prevented outsiders from ever getting in, and unfortunately the criterion for the most part was always race. Fat old white guys had no problem with a self-made white guy who joined the country club, but God Almighty forbid a darkie make his way in.
The problem is when you give someone who in no way, shape, or form merits it an easy 'DO pass go, DO collect $200' card in a blind, misguided effort to somehow mitigate or repay centuries of disadvantage or oppression. Taking a black kid with an 1100 on his SAT over the white kid or Asian kid with a 1500 just so you can have a "broader sampling of students" at the University of Michigan is laughable, pathetic, and embarrassing. Go out and find the black kids with commensurate SAT scores of their own if you want to.
I personally kept race off of every form I possibly could. I broke the 99th percentile on the SAT, left the demographic disclosure form entirely blank, and wrote in "Lil Wayne" as my favorite artist on the box just so I could buck the trend where respondents who wrote that were proven to have the lowest average score nationally. Yes, I lost untold thousands of dollars of financial aid, both from the university I chose to attend and from external sources because of that, but I go to sleep every night knowing I fucking busted by back to get where I am by my own merits and nothing more. No connection I didn't fight for, no resource I didn't sweat to earn, no grade or score or degree that wasn't wholly mine and mine alone. Same thing at work. You think I got in through diversity recruiting? Fuck you, every offer I got came because I hustled my ass into studyabroad superdays and made sure I locked up a job offer before I went and gallivanted around another continent for half a year.
If any effort along these lines today were appropriate, it would be based on socioeconomic background, not ethnicity. I grew up in the hood. North Philly, it sucks. And it wasn't just black kids. There were white kids ducking strays too, trying to stay out of a life of abject misery and crime, Hispanics too.
As a society, we need to collectively get past the trauma and attitude of guilt and touchy-feeliness about black/white relations in this nation's history. I will be first in line to point out that we live in a era far from being post-racial, but good God, I can't believe in 2012 we're still arguing about whether it's appropriate to accept underqualified kids from one ethnic group over qualified ones from another.
A lot of people do certain things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.
^^^ props
^^^
props
I never understood the
I never understood the purpose of AA based on race and ethnicity. However, I do see merit in AA based on income since no one can argue that a kid that goes to Andover is the same as a kid that goes to Ghetto High.
"Have you ever tried to use a chain with 3 weak links? I have, and now I no longer own an arctic wolf."
-Dwight Schrute
I agree completely with A
I agree completely with A Posse...However, we have to remember that the same ppl arguing against AA, are the same who have no problem with people being admitted to schools based on legacy. In fact, legacies are given a leg up at America's Ivies. Just look at George W. Bush. You think with an SAT score like his and grades like his, he would have gotten into Yale? Absolutely not. No one should be admitted based on race. But no one should be admitted based on their parents going to school there either. I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of Princeton's admits are legacies. Read the book "The Price of Admission." AA makes up a very small amount of admits. Legacies and playing sports that indicate that one comes from an upper class home is more likely to garner an admit than someone from the "hood" who indicates they're a URM. Students in high school who play lacrosse or engage in horseback riding have a much better chance of admission than someone who doesn't because these sports indicate that you come from a family that could be a wealthy and donate large sums in future years.
AA, especially
AA, especially ethnicity-based AA, is bull. It's fundamentally unconstitutional, not to mention unfair.
Income based AA gets closer to the root of the problem, but is still unfair.
Also, consider avoiding URM doctors...
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_otfwl2zc6Qc/TSzjera4edI/AAAAAAAAOzg/Z5dyJg8wI9...
"When I was young I thought that money was the most important thing in life; now that I am old I know that it is."
- Oscar Wilde
"Seriously, psychology is for those with two x chromosomes."
- RagnarDanneskjold
TraderDaily wrote: I agree
I agree completely with A Posse...However, we have to remember that the same ppl arguing against AA, are the same who have no problem with people being admitted to schools based on legacy. In fact, legacies are given a leg up at America's Ivies. Just look at George W. Bush. You think with an SAT score like his and grades like his, he would have gotten into Yale? Absolutely not. No one should be admitted based on race. But no one should be admitted based on their parents going to school there either. I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of Princeton's admits are legacies. Read the book "The Price of Admission." AA makes up a very small amount of admits. Legacies and playing sports that indicate that one comes from an upper class home is more likely to garner an admit than someone from the "hood" who indicates they're a URM. Students in high school who play lacrosse or engage in horseback riding have a much better chance of admission than someone who doesn't because these sports indicate that you come from a family that could be a wealthy and donate large sums in future years.
But schools that take legacy seriously don't have leaders that are publicly elected/restricted from making decisions on admissions based on whats said in the constitution.
A Posse Ad Esse wrote: I'll
I'll say this as a URM who has conscientiously and purposefully omitted race from any form I've ever filled out for school or employment:
Race should not be a determining factor in admissions or advancement in any endeavor, be it undergrad, grad school, or finance/law/medicine/consulting/engineering/etc. Flat out, simple as that.
I get the motivation. You had a number of industries where the good ol' boys club prevented outsiders from ever getting in, and unfortunately the criterion for the most part was always race. Fat old white guys had no problem with a self-made white guy who joined the country club, but God Almighty forbid a darkie make his way in.
The problem is when you give someone who in no way, shape, or form merits it an easy 'DO pass go, DO collect $200' card in a blind, misguided effort to somehow mitigate or repay centuries of disadvantage or oppression. Taking a black kid with an 1100 on his SAT over the white kid or Asian kid with a 1500 just so you can have a "broader sampling of students" at the University of Michigan is laughable, pathetic, and embarrassing. Go out and find the black kids with commensurate SAT scores of their own if you want to.
I personally kept race off of every form I possibly could. I broke the 99th percentile on the SAT, left the demographic disclosure form entirely blank, and wrote in "Lil Wayne" as my favorite artist on the box just so I could buck the trend where respondents who wrote that were proven to have the lowest average score nationally. Yes, I lost untold thousands of dollars of financial aid, both from the university I chose to attend and from external sources because of that, but I go to sleep every night knowing I fucking busted by back to get where I am by my own merits and nothing more. No connection I didn't fight for, no resource I didn't sweat to earn, no grade or score or degree that wasn't wholly mine and mine alone. Same thing at work. You think I got in through diversity recruiting? Fuck you, every offer I got came because I hustled my ass into studyabroad superdays and made sure I locked up a job offer before I went and gallivanted around another continent for half a year.
If any effort along these lines today were appropriate, it would be based on socioeconomic background, not ethnicity. I grew up in the hood. North Philly, it sucks. And it wasn't just black kids. There were white kids ducking strays too, trying to stay out of a life of abject misery and crime, Hispanics too.
As a society, we need to collectively get past the trauma and attitude of guilt and touchy-feeliness about black/white relations in this nation's history. I will be first in line to point out that we live in a era far from being post-racial, but good God, I can't believe in 2012 we're still arguing about whether it's appropriate to accept underqualified kids from one ethnic group over qualified ones from another.
You sir, are a great American. If more URM's were like you, this country would be a much better place.
Major props for your hard work, intelligence, and integrity.
TraderDaily wrote: I agree
I agree completely with A Posse...However, we have to remember that the same ppl arguing against AA, are the same who have no problem with people being admitted to schools based on legacy. In fact, legacies are given a leg up at America's Ivies. Just look at George W. Bush. You think with an SAT score like his and grades like his, he would have gotten into Yale? Absolutely not. No one should be admitted based on race. But no one should be admitted based on their parents going to school there either. I remember reading somewhere that about 30 percent of Princeton's admits are legacies. Read the book "The Price of Admission." AA makes up a very small amount of admits. Legacies and playing sports that indicate that one comes from an upper class home is more likely to garner an admit than someone from the "hood" who indicates they're a URM. Students in high school who play lacrosse or engage in horseback riding have a much better chance of admission than someone who doesn't because these sports indicate that you come from a family that could be a wealthy and donate large sums in future years.
Fair point. I'm against legacies getting preference as well. I think any type of preferential treatment should be based purely on socioeconomics.
It would be interesting to
It would be interesting to see what you guys make of the exam system in the UK, given your points made in the above.
Our O level, (16 year old exams - 10 subjects) and A level,(older version of, 18 yr old exams 4 subjects) were 3 hour exams at the end of the schooling period, (so 2 years for the A levels, and the end of that year for the O level).
This cram it in at the end examination approach seemed to favour males, so as in an effort to realign the balance, coursework and modular style exams were introduced, and we have we have today, where girls have the academic edge over guys.
Now who's the better candidate?
In theory, a URM candidate
In theory, a URM candidate should only be favored over another candidate if they are equal on all fronts except for the fact that one is a URM and the other is not. So technically, an 1100 SAT black student will never be chosen over a 1500 SAT white student.
That being said, I do not agree with AA because it is impossible to fairly apply the theory, as no two candidates are identical on all fronts except their ethnicity, sexuality, or gender. There are definitely benefits to diversity though.
Don't think it will change
Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."
Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.
trazer985 wrote: It would be
It would be interesting to see what you guys make of the exam system in the UK, given your points made in the above.
Our O level, (16 year old exams - 10 subjects) and A level,(older version of, 18 yr old exams 4 subjects) were 3 hour exams at the end of the schooling period, (so 2 years for the A levels, and the end of that year for the O level).
This cram it in at the end examination approach seemed to favour males, so as in an effort to realign the balance, coursework and modular style exams were introduced, and we have we have today, where girls have the academic edge over guys.
Now who's the better candidate?
The A level system is ridiculous. All of your course's grade based on one or two two hour examinations at the end of the year. The American/Canadian system is more fair and builds a better work ethic.
But, I guess I get your point. There will almost always be a 'more fair' system that is less fair to another candidate.
burnt tangerine wrote: Don't
Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."
Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.
If the court rules against AA, it won't change instantly, but over time, if there are more and more similar rulings, and more people become against AA, it will have a profound impact in our society.
Also, we're not helping out the people with 1100 SAT scores who get into elite colleges because of AA. They're going to get destroyed by all of the people who get in through normal admissions.
"Have you ever tried to use a chain with 3 weak links? I have, and now I no longer own an arctic wolf."
-Dwight Schrute
Hamilton wrote: burnt
Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."
Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.
If the court rules against AA, it won't change instantly, but over time, if there are more and more similar rulings, and more people become against AA, it will have a profound impact in our society.
Also, we're not helping out the people with 1100 SAT scores who get into elite colleges because of AA. They're going to get destroyed by all of the people who get in through normal admissions.
You sure about that? My sister got into a "elite" university with that identical SAT score and currently has a 3.9 GPA while simultaneously being involved in extra curriculars and volunteering. SAT does one thing well, and that's measure what kind of socioeconomic background you came from.
"Life all comes down to a few moments. This is one of them." - Bud Fox
burnt tangerine wrote: Don't
Don't think it will change much honestly. The elite liberal universities still want to be "culturally enriched."
Asians make more money than any other race on average. They are not oppressed.
Yeah that is true, but I don't see how that is relevant. Asians, like any other race, deserve a fair playing field. And for the record, I'm white.
I think getting rid of
I think getting rid of Affirmative Action is bad, there will be no excuse for the people who say person X had an advantage on me b/c of his skin color.
Now what will those failures do?
No troll.
Sure, get rid of AA, legacy,
Sure, get rid of AA, legacy, and sport admissions, and turn Harvard into MIT and Caltech. Who would want to go there then? Many don't realise that the diversity of a school is part of what adds to the prestige and makes people want to go there.
seedy underbelly
Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness.
haha I love how americans are still pushing this.
(It's bullshit.)
24837 wrote: seedy
Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness.
haha I love how americans are still pushing this.
(It's bullshit.)
It isn't bullshit - it's how my girlfriends family came here with nothing and has now produced a dentist, an ivy league educated mba and a consultant at a top firm, with no family history, coming from a place where the regime had taken all of her families properties. You're just too ignorant to appreciate how great America really is.
24837 wrote: seedy
Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness.
haha I love how americans are still pushing this.
(It's bullshit.)
It's anything but bullshit
If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses - Henry Ford
seabird wrote: 24837
Social mobility, moving from one economic class to a higher one, one must remember, is the cornerstone of America's greatness.
haha I love how americans are still pushing this.
(It's bullshit.)
It isn't bullshit - it's how my girlfriends family came here with nothing and has now produced a dentist, an ivy league educated mba and a consultant at a top firm, with no family history, coming from a place where the regime had taken all of her families properties. You're just too ignorant to appreciate how great America really is.
ehm... I'm not saying social mobility doesn't exist.
My point is that if anything, it's a weakness rather than strength of the US - social mobility in the US is remarkably low when compared to many other developed nations.
e.g. LSE study "Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America ":
"The level of intergenerational mobility in society is seen by many as a measure of the
extent of equality of economic and social opportunity. It captures the degree of
equality in life chances - the extent to which a person’s circumstances during
childhood are reflected in their success in later life, or on the flip-side, the extent to
which individuals can make it by virtue of their own talents, motivation and luck. "
"International comparisons of intergenerational mobility show that Britain, like the
United States, is at the lower end of international comparisons of mobility."
"Part of the reason for the decline in mobility has been the increasing relationship
between family income and educational attainment between these cohorts. This
was because additional opportunities to stay in education at both age 16 and age
18 disproportionately benefited those from better-off backgrounds. "
http://cep.lse.ac.uk/about/news/IntergenerationalMobility.pdf
Thats a stupid comparison and
Thats a stupid comparison and you're stupid for saying that the US is less valid than China because theres less rapid economic change amongst large portions of the society over short periods of time. If you start from zero, as in many Chinese peoples cases, its not hard to say youve improved your lot significantly.
I wonder how much social
I wonder how much social mobility is caused by personal decisions. Some countries have low social mobility because of restrictions on it and walls which prevent one class from moving up. The US has relatively no walls and plenty of options. Just look at recent immigrants who come poor or "low" class and within a generation that have doctors and lawyers in the family.
If someone doesn't save or doesn't go to school they will not move up in class. That doesn't mean they didn't have the option or chance to do so. All that matters is the US continues to provide the opportunity. Whether it is used is up to the person.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
seabird wrote: Thats a stupid
Thats a stupid comparison and you're stupid for saying that the US is less valid than China because theres less rapid economic change amongst large portions of the society over short periods of time. If you start from zero, as in many Chinese peoples cases, its not hard to say youve improved your lot significantly.
okay, you need to relax.
I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion, but there's no need to throw around random insults, especially if you make no sense yourself.
1) I clearly stated I'm talking about developed countries. Please re-read my post.
2) The study I quoted compares Europe and Northern America. China isn't even mentioned once in that whole article.
In the future, please refrain from using straw man arguments, it bores me to death and doesn't add any value to this discussion whatsoever.
ANT wrote: All that matters
All that matters is the US continues to provide the opportunity. Whether it is used is up to the person.
Fair point.
All I'm saying is: It's highly debatable to call the US "THE" country of social mobility, when other Western countries offer a stronger track record in this regard.
Lol I wonder if the white
Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.
24837 wrote: okay, you need
okay, you need to relax.
I'll be happy to have a reasonable discussion, but there's no need to throw around random insults, especially if you make no sense yourself.
1) I clearly stated I'm talking about developed countries. Please re-read my post.
2) The study I quoted compares Europe and Northern America. China isn't even mentioned once in that whole article.
In the future, please refrain from using straw man arguments, it bores me to death and doesn't add any value to this discussion whatsoever.
Bullshit.
Western countries have higher
Western countries have higher taxes on the well off and more social programs which is basically the government juicing mobility. Maybe makes it easier. I personally think it is unfair to do so since mobility is possible without government help, but each place can do what it likes.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: Western countries
Western countries have higher taxes on the well off and more social programs which is basically the government juicing mobility. Maybe makes it easier. I personally think it is unfair to do so since mobility is possible without government help, but each place can do what it likes.
True, whether university should be 100% subsidized is discussion for itself.
Either way you look at it though, it's pretty be obvious that a publicly funded university system that's free for everyone has its benefits, specifically for immigrant families - they don't pay a lot of taxes, yet all the kids can go to med/law/engineering school, given they have the necessary IQ and drive.
Theoretically, you could go all the way to a PhD in engineering in Germany without ever paying a €, then jump on the ridiculous wages paid in Switzerland.
You'd be debt-free, with excellent education, making stupid amounts of money while living in a part of the world with AAA standard of living. How's that for social mobility?
Again, not saying this success story is impossible in the US, rather that I'm always amazed that Americans seem to believe "rags to riches" is a specifically american phenomenon.
that's not true, and the bubble in US education makes it evermore unlikely to happen.
BigBucks wrote: Lol I wonder
Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.
I'm saying the box shouldn't even be there to begin with, and until it isn't, my answer will be 'Prefer not to disclose.'
A lot of people do certain things to add days to their life. I do things to add life to my days.
24837 wrote: ANT
Western countries have higher taxes on the well off and more social programs which is basically the government juicing mobility. Maybe makes it easier. I personally think it is unfair to do so since mobility is possible without government help, but each place can do what it likes.
True, whether university should be 100% subsidized is discussion for itself.
Either way you look at it though, it's pretty be obvious that a publicly funded university system that's free for everyone has its benefits, specifically for immigrant families - they don't pay a lot of taxes, yet all the kids can go to med/law/engineering school, given they have the necessary IQ and drive.
Theoretically, you could go all the way to a PhD in engineering in Germany without ever paying a €, then jump on the ridiculous wages paid in Switzerland.
You'd be debt-free, with excellent education, making stupid amounts of money while living in a part of the world with AAA standard of living. How's that for social mobility?
Again, not saying this success story is impossible in the US, rather that I'm always amazed that Americans seem to believe "rags to riches" is a specifically american phenomenon.
that's not true, and the bubble in US education makes it evermore unlikely to happen.
I think "free" has its problems though. You have people hanging out in school or everyone going because it has no cost. You also need to fund it through increased taxation which has its own negatives.
I actually think most state schools in the US have it right. I mean everyone can get student loans and if you go to a state school, the debt is minimal. Getting a bachelors in accounting and having 20-30K worth of debt is pretty respectable.
Unfortunately, much like free college is abused, so is "free" student loans. Kids max them out, go to expensive schools instead of state schools, major in stuff that cannot support the debt loan incurred, etc.
Not sure what the answer is though.
MSF Website
MACC Website
MSF Twitter
ANT wrote: I think "free"
I think "free" has its problems though. You have people hanging out in school or everyone going because it has no cost. You also need to fund it through increased taxation which has its own negatives.
I actually think most state schools in the US have it right. I mean everyone can get student loans and if you go to a state school, the debt is minimal. Getting a bachelors in accounting and having 20-30K worth of debt is pretty respectable.
Actually, most countries have put incentives in place!
- In Germany, you get e.g. for a 3-yr bachelor's degree one year extra (3+1=4).
You're not quite done after 4 years? Too bad. You get expelled and lose the right to ever major in the same subject again in Germany.
- The Netherlands provide free university only for the "normal" time period.
You're not done after 3 years? You pay for every additional semester.
A Posse Ad Esse
Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.
I'm saying the box shouldn't even be there to begin with, and until it isn't, my answer will be 'Prefer not to disclose.'
A Posse, props to you man. You seem like a very capable, accomplished individual. I do partially agree with what BigBucks said though - you should take advantage of everything you can. You got the scores, the GPA, etc. so if someone wants to give you an even bigger boost because of a factor you can't control (e.g. race), take it. They're the sucker and until they realize that what they're doing is unnecessary/unfair in certain instances, you should use it to your advantage.
BigBucks, I agree with the intentions of your post but I believe that you don't quite understand what A Posse is saying. He's playing on the same field as everyone else by refusing to disclose his race. If he disclosed it, as you are advocating, he'd have a leg up on the competition with all the same test scores, etc. I'm not saying that's right or wrong, but rather that he's not "handicapping" himself and that you are, in fact, giving yourself an edge (something you don't seem to understand when you say that not circling "African-American" could potentially cost yourself admission to a top school - this implies that without AA, you wouldn't be a qualified candidate).
Furthermore, your example about the white frat bros is unrelated - if they chose to be in that frat, then they deserve the benefits/consequences for doing so. The fraternity, unless I'm mistaken, is open to both whites and blacks who can take advantage of its benefits during hiring season. Affirmative Action, by definition, is not open to all.
I also agree that AA should
I also agree that AA should be based on economic status. There are far too few 1%ers in top universities.
Follow the shit your fellow monkeys say @shitWSOsays
BigBucks wrote: Lol I wonder
Lol I wonder if the white guys who get "hook-ups" for employment due to various fraternities having national connections turn down job offers because they don't feel right about obtaining unfair advantage over non-frat kids. I respect A Posse Ad Esse and his sentiment but to advocate handicapping one's self by not taking advantage of every advantage afforded is ridiculous. Life is unfair, and life is a competition, don't think your competition is going to handicap themselves or be as honorable as you are. Now, reading A Posse's post, I believe he is arrogant enough to believe he can beat the competition while simultaneously handicapping himself, and I say, go for it. I am a URM and in much the same light as A Posse, score well enough on standardized tests to be competitive based on any metric, but that doesn't mean I won't circle African-American come time for Master's applications, to not do so and potentially cost myself admission to a top school would be stupid.
Agree with this.
I also agree that AA should be based on economic status. There are far too few 1%ers in top universities.
Lol
seabird wrote: I didn't think
I didn't think it was possible, but holy crap - Kennedy may actually vote correctly on this one. Of course, he doesn't have a good track record. The precedent seems to exist mainly in two cases heard in 2006 - Meredith v. Jefferson Board of Education,
Justice Kennedy concurred in part with Chief Justice Roberts' opinion and concurred in the judgment. He wrote a concurring opinion addressing his dissent from part of Roberts' opinion.
Part I - Kennedy's dissent from the plurality opinion, stating that diversity can be a compelling educational goal depending on the definition.
Part II - Chief Justice's implication of an "all-too-unyielding insistence that race cannot be a factor."
Part III - Response to dissent's assumptions
III-A - "[R]eliance on [the] Court's precedents to justify the explicit, sweeping, classwide racial classifications at issue" as a misreading that undermines "principles needed to guard our freedom."
III-B - Dissent's minimizing or neglecting difference between de facto segregation and de jure segregation.
III-C - Dissent ignoring dangers of "individual classifications"
and Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District 1
In his concurrence, Kennedy differed with the plurality because, he found, the goal of obtaining a diverse student body is a compelling state interest.
"Diversity, depending on its meaning and definition, is a compelling educational goal a school district may pursue. "
Furthermore, Kennedy found that that race-conscious mechanisms can be used by school districts to further the goal of diversity, a position rejected by the plurality. Kennedy argued that the government had an interest in ensuring racial equality: "The plurality opinion is too dismissive of the legitimate interest government has in ensuring all people have equal opportunity regardless of their race."
Finally, Kennedy wrote:
"A compelling interest exists in avoiding racial isolation, an interest that a school district, in its discretion and expertise, may choose to pursue. Likewise, a district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population. Race may be one component of that diversity, but other demographic factors, plus special talents and needs, should also be considered."
Nevertheless, Kennedy found the school districts did not narrowly tailor the use of race to achieve the compelling interests in the case. Specifically, Kennedy finds that the districts could have achieved the same goal through less racially charged means.
Justice Kennedy asserts that the dissent must "brush aside two concepts of central importance" to uphold the racial classification in the case. First, Kennedy harshly faults the dissent for consciously ignoring the difference between de jure and de facto segregation. And second, Kennedy faults the dissent for ignoring the "presumptive invalidity of a State's use of racial classifications to differentiate its treatment of individuals."
He feels that AA can be legitimate, and he has only narrowly favored removing it in the past in fairly narrow opinions. I think he supports the idea that AA can be constitutional, where as it has to meet some fairly strict guidelines for seeking to promote diversity as opposed to race based merits.
Ehh.. these cases don't show his views as much as the 2003 relevant ones in which he sided with the dissenters and decided that systems that use race as a factor in admissions tend to be unconstitutional. Not always, but they tend to be unless they're very narrow in scope, which most aren't.